Record Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) served, Verizon, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) with subpoena under DMCA 512(h), seeking to identify subscribers whom it believed had infringed their members’ copyrights by trading large amount of digital music files via P2P file sharing programs. RIAA filed motion to compel production. The District Court granted RIAA's motion, denied Verizon’s motion to quash and ordered to disclose the identity of the subscribers. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions that Verizon is acting as a conduit for p2p file sharing, which does not involve the storage of infringing material on its servers.
Record companies and music publishers brought copyright infringement action against Napster, an Internet service that facilitated the transmission and retention of digital audio files by its users. Circuit judge held injunctive relief was proper to impose duty to provide notice of copyright status upon plaintiffs, duty on service to search for copyrighted works that were subject of notice given by plaintiffs, and courts can require ISPs to use new filtering mechanism.
Creating safe harbors for ISPs against monetary liability for copyright infringing material posted or sent through an intermediary’s system. Unlike §230, DMCA safe harbors don’t prevent suit for injunctive relief against an intermediary nor protect all Internet intermediaries except the four classes of intermediaries: conduit providers such as telephone companies, those who store or cache content hosted by another, and those who host content posted by another, and search engines. Safe harbor is available only to an intermediary that “does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity.” To benefit from the safe harbors, intermediaries must establish, publicize and implement both a notice and...
Communications Decency Act Section 230 (CDA 230) provides broad immunity for intermediaries. It provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, and that intermediaries shall not be liable on account of efforts to monitor or enforce policies against inappropriate or unlawful user-generated content. It immunizes platforms for nearly all claims except for those under federal criminal law and intellectual property law. This 1996 law, long a pillar of US Internet legal practice, was amended for the first time since its enactment in 2018. The new law, FOSTA, expands intermediary liability for claims involving sex trafficking and prostitution. CDA 230 cases arise too frequently to be captured...
Universal brought an action against Sony alleging that video tape recorder (VTRs) consumers had been recording some of Universal’s copyrighted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and thereby infringed on their copyrights, and further that Sony was liable for such copyright infringement because of their marketing of the VTRs. The Supreme Court held that "the sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of Universal's copyrights." The Court concluded that there was a significant likelihood that a substantial number of copyright holders who license their works for free public broadcasts would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted by private viewers and that Universal failed to show that time-shifting would cause non-minimal harm to the...